Hillary Clinton was asked to comment: "I thought the cultural performance was fascinating," she cooed.

Pressed again on Ortega's vitriol, Hillary replied: "To have those first-class Caribbean entertainers all on one stage and to see how much was done in such a small amount of space. I was overwhelmed."

Thus the nation that won the Cold War, contained the cancer of Castroism in Cuba, liberated Grenada, blocked communist takeovers of Guatemala and the Dominican Republic, and poured scores of billions in aid into this region was left undefended by its own leaders at the Summit of the Americas.

11 comments:

The President and the Secretary of State did not bother responding to two-bit bullies who chose to embarrass themselves in public. The punks didn't deserve a response, and they didn't deserve the added media attention that would have come from playing "he said/she said" games. I'm proud to have leaders with dignity and strategic judgment. Their actions convey our strength better than any duel of words could have.

I love how Lee keeps convicting Obama of whatever fantasy he has about what Obama thinks or would do. Here's the reality Lee-Obama's more popular that Ortega and Chavez are in their own countries. Ms. Weston is right-there's no reason for Obama to stoop to their level.

Lee, if Obama thinks the US is an evil, imperialist power, then why is he expanding the role of the US military in Afghanistan and Pakistan? If he loves terrorists, why are we still using drones to hunt them down and kill them? At what point will the dissonance between what the President really does and what the Obama in your head would do cause you to reassess how accurate your fantasy Obama is?

My point was simply that national leaders have an obligation to defend the country against its detractors, particularly when they are present when the criticisms are being made.

Susan's hypothesis here is not implausible. That may have been the conscious strategy. But if the problem is the stature of the people making the criticisms, and the President or the Secretary of State would somehow be demeaned by making a response, then someone else should have been deployed to do it.

My point is simply that, if it is a conscious strategy, then it isn't a good one. Susan seems to think it is a good one.

Also, I'm thinking that if not answering charges you don't think are well grounded is good public relations, when can we see the practice in action at the Prichard Committee website?

I find subtle satire, scorn, and condescension to be much more biting and effective than screaming in rebuttal "axis of evil". The latter fairly reeks of insecurity and fear, the former of strength, conviction, and security.

> I love how Lee keeps convicting Obama of whatever fantasy he has about what Obama thinks or would do.

I hope you're right that it's just a fantasy. But the observable facts aren't so reassuring. BO went to a church for twenty years where the pastor spewed things like "God d*** America!" from the pulpit, and was fine with it until he was running for president. He complained that America has only 5% of the world's population yet consumes 25% of its "resources" -- a standard leftist trope, to be sure. His wife said, when he won a primary or two, that for the first time in her life, she was proud to be an American. His own memoirs speak of how he carefully chose and cultivated his friends, such as the campus Marxists. He launched his political campaign at a soiree hosted by Pentagon bomber Bill Ayers. His first trip to Europe was spent apologizing for American's past misdeeds.

I'm just not sure what is in all that, that Chavez would have trouble with. Fine, so Chavez says it all with more anger in his voice.

Sorry, it doesn't seem like fantasy to me. Every once in a while, people say what they really mean.

> Here's the reality Lee-Obama's more popular that Ortega and Chavez are in their own countries.

For now.

> Ms. Weston is right-there's no reason for Obama to stoop to their level.

If Chavez was going to stoop to that level, why go there at all? I think the appropriate thing to have done would have been to simply leave.

> Lee, if Obama thinks the US is an evil, imperialist power, then why is he expanding the role of the US military in Afghanistan and Pakistan?

I don't have a problem with that part of his foreign policy. So far, so good.

> If he loves terrorists, why are we still using drones to hunt them down and kill them?

By some definitions, someone who has bombed government buildings (e.g., the Pentagon, Congress) could be classified as a terrorist. I doubt that it means Ayers is going to be targeted with a drone.

> At what point will the dissonance between what the President really does and what the Obama in your head would do cause you to reassess how accurate your fantasy Obama is?

Well, before the election, they were saying that accusations of his socialistic beliefs were a right-wing fantasy. Ooops. I guess not. We're still learning about this guy, but some things we already know.